🔗 Share this article

It has been that deadly assault of 7 October 2023, an event that profoundly impacted global Jewish populations unlike anything else following the founding of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people the event proved shocking. For the state of Israel, it was a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist project was founded on the belief which held that the Jewish state would prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

Military action was inevitable. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of many thousands ordinary people – was a choice. And this choice created complexity in the perspective of many American Jews processed the attack that set it in motion, and currently challenges the community's remembrance of the day. How does one grieve and remember a tragedy affecting their nation during an atrocity done to another people attributed to their identity?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The complexity surrounding remembrance lies in the circumstance where no agreement exists about the implications of these developments. In fact, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement regarding Zionism.

The early development of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations dates back to writings from 1915 authored by an attorney who would later become Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis named “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus truly solidified after the Six-Day War during 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans contained a fragile but stable parallel existence among different factions that had diverse perspectives regarding the need of a Jewish state – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Background Information

That coexistence persisted during the post-war decades, in remnants of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he did not permit performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Nor were Zionist ideology the central focus of Modern Orthodoxy until after the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

Yet after Israel routed its neighbors during the 1967 conflict in 1967, occupying territories such as Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish relationship to the country underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, combined with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, led to an increasing conviction about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language regarding the “miraculous” quality of the success and the reclaiming of territory assigned the Zionist project a theological, even messianic, importance. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Publication editor Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a nation should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of the unified position, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on a belief regarding Israel as a democratic and free – albeit ethnocentric – state. Many American Jews considered the control of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands after 1967 as temporary, thinking that an agreement was imminent that would guarantee a Jewish majority in Israel proper and regional acceptance of Israel.

Several cohorts of US Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel a fundamental aspect of their identity as Jews. The nation became a central part of Jewish education. Israeli national day became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners decorated many temples. Youth programs became infused with national melodies and learning of the language, with Israelis visiting educating American teenagers Israeli customs. Travel to Israel expanded and peaked with Birthright Israel by 1999, when a free trip to the nation was offered to young American Jews. The state affected almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, during this period following the war, US Jewish communities developed expertise regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and discussion between Jewish denominations grew.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – there existed diversity ended. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish state remained unquestioned, and challenging that perspective placed you outside mainstream views – outside the community, as one publication labeled it in writing recently.

Yet presently, under the weight of the devastation within Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and frustration regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that agreement has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer